Are you kidding? The internet isn't just about news (that's a very, very small part of it), it's about everything. Cutting off your country from the internet is like gouging out your eyes and poking out your ear drums. Yes, you can still live, but you are going to be a sad cripple.

Yes, you're gonna lose a hell lot of cat videos. Some research papers. Some insights on how to "get things done". BS commercial culture in the form of movies and music. The latest memes.

Still, people managed to get by for milleniums without it just fine. Maybe even better.

This is probably what the SOPA proposers have dreamed for the US and the rest of the world. A internet controlled by them without any type of content distribution except those they authorize. All in the name of the stopping piracy.

Im sure this is the true dream of the MPAA and the RIAA.

I would say their dream is to have NO internet, in any form. Their dream is to go back to the mounds of money and cocaine they had in the 80's while riding on the back of artists. Now they actually have to work for a living and, SHOCKINGLY, artists are finding they don't even need record companies anymore.

But this is the wish of an industry. Luckily there are tons more industries out there that rely on the internet that make more money than all the movie and music companies do combined. I used to think that the music and movie industry made lots of money. I was impressed when I heard about a movie making like 300 million at the box-office. Or even the biggest movies making over a billion world-wide. But this is drop in the ocean compared to what the tech industry makes. They deal with hundreds of billions of dollars. They're not going to cater to some low-level industry that counts their profits in only the millions. They're small potatoes. The RIAA/MPAA just have a big lobbying group..that's pretty much all they have going for it at this point.

Getting back to this issue with Iran, it's not industries or organizations that want to close down the Internet, it's their government itself. Afraid of what their citizens will do with it and are scared of an uprising like the Arab Springs and others using social media to organize. If they can shut all that down before it gets out of hand, then they stay in power longer.

I snicker every time I hear someone babbling incoherently about how afraid they are of "rise" of Islamic extremist groups and nations. Actually, I don't snicker, I hang my head in disappointment over what a bunch of cowards the West, and in particular America, has become. These guys are not a threat. Soviet-fucking-Union with a few thousand nukes, an appealing ideology to both the intellectuals and the masses, and half the worlds population? That was a threat. That was a technological empire that either directly or indirectly had control over half of the worlds population and could do some damage if we ever came to blows. These clowns though? They are technologically backward and desperately trying to grow the gap. Their ideology has nearly zero appeal to anyone who isn't already destitute. Hollywood alone eats these clowns alive and spits out their bones. Africa and fellow Middle Eastern countries should be worried about Islamic extremism, but for the West to give these clowns more than a passing thought is just pathetic and cowardly.

You don't even need to fight them. They are going to off themselves without any help from the West. We should turn our eyes to far more scary things, like balancing budgets and reviving economies.

I'm sad for the opposite. In ancient times these were the scholars of the world, taking in, and preserving ideas. Today you say Islam, and all people hear are desperate terrorist. (tysm Osama) We owe so much of our modern world to their innovation, and now look at them. I wish they would some how grow out of this stage, and become what they were before. Keepers of ideas, and culture.

well, it might seem preposterous for US citizens, but this is because the internet is effectively American-based already, so no need to make it US-only.

Case in point: most of the services we use are American, including 3 we probably spend most of our day in (Google, Facebook, Twitter). Most of the content circulated and downloaded by US citizens (bought or pirated) is American or at worse, European (with the possible exception of Anime). Besides those, most of the forums you frequent, social nets you join, pages and blogs you read, media you follow, are predominantly American. Even Wikipedia, albeit "international", holds mostly a neutered western secular official-history stance. Fuck, even the DNS is controlled by American organizations --and let's not start with domain seizures etc. Yes, one can venture outside the American domain, but even the language barrier (most Americans don't speak a foreign language) constrains that a lot. Well, if you're technically minded it's better (you can find technical posts in english from all around the world) but we're talking about the general population here.

So, would American's feel OK with a imaginary internet that was run mostly by, say, USSR and followed USSR doctrines? Would you let your citizens data fall on USSR organizations that openly share it with the government? One can understand why Iranians might not feel OK with the present internet. Especially if the dominant culture behind the internet also threatens it all the time, and has already invaded a few nearby places --oh and also overthrew their democratic government a few decades ago to install a dictatorship.

What I mean is: OK, this is bad from a ideal standpoint of world unity et al. But one has to judge such moves also in the conditions of the time, and try walking in the shoes (so to speak) of the people that might be threatened (not just abstractly but in a very real sense). One should also try to understand the historical perspective of such decisions.

Also one cannot always attribute such decisions to the iranian government only (as if citizens don't want it). There is, after all such a thing as a society that wants such things, one has only to look as far as the Bible Belt for an example. If the US was just the Bible belt, how long before the Internet would have been voted to be American only and censored?

Yeah, those damn Americans, controlling the entire internet from their position in second place. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with any of your points. Most Americans use American services? And? Those same American sites are localized to use different languages and follow different rules in different countries. How would American's feel about a Russian-run internet? Since almost everything is localized, they probably wouldn't notice. Perhaps you're not aware, but in Russia, Facebook is in Cyrillic. There's very little that makes in "American" there, and there's no language barrier, because you're usually friends with people that speak your language. Heck, I bounce off Russian servers all the time, and those DO fall under Russian laws.

What "dominant culture" of the internet are you referring to? Are there American people running around everywhere saying that since hand-egg is called football in America, all other countries must cease using that phrase, and that "soccer" is the new name? Are American spies planting American slang onto Irish newspapers? Where is this "dominant" culture you speak of, because for the life of me, I can't seem to find it. Are American value propagating through DNS or something? What?!

Cutting off your country from the rest of the internet is something that Americans wouldn't stand for. All the talk of "oh the Bible Belt". Bullcrap, you know how many of those guys play online poker on Russian servers? They'd cry bloody murder. The point is that most people don't care where a website is stored, or what country the people running it came from. They just want it to be useful for them, and as long as you're connected to the people you know (which is what all the big internet companies are trying to do) then the "dominant culture" for any user is the one they choose. You think the April 6th Youth Movement felt that their culture was being dominated by the west because they organized on Facebook? No, to them, THEIR culture was dominant on the site. That's the point of the internet- even though it's technically an American-run website, it was used by people for their own ends. There is no "dominant" culture on the internet. There is only dominant culture of the parts of the internet you choose to go.

All the snide comments against Americans always makes me laugh. "Those stupid Americans, always stereotyping other cultures". Wait...what? It's like you don't realize that the stereotypes applied to Americanas are about as reliable as those applied to any other country-- mostly meaningless. Considering in the 30 years, white people are going to be the minority here, you guys are going to have to discover some new material. Unless you intend to take the negative stereotypes about Americans and also apply them to the Latino and African-American communities.

The protection of the people from ideas that differ from the norm has always been a way to test the resiliency of the people your protecting. Social evolution through religious restriction, a hand forced by man in the name of God. Human beings suck!

Good luck with that Iran... do send us an email and let us know how its going.

Bet I'm the only one here who actually supports the immediate removal of Ahmadinejad.

And who are you/we to support such a thing? Should other countries who don't like their policies demand the immediate removal of Obama (or Bush before that), or does only America gets to play that?

(And those other countries would be even more justified, for they dislike the us's foreign policies, not their internal ones which is nobody's business).

I say this is for the people of any country to decide by itself, either with elections (if in a democracy) or with action (if in a dictatorship).

Never mind that USA have removed a democratically elected leader in Iran once before.

Meh, the whole world is still smarting from the US foreign policy of "anything but a person willing to talk to Moscow" of the 50s to about the 80s. The most vile dictator could be backed by money and weapons if only he publicly and loudly denounced the soviet union.

International politics is anything but the white hat, black hat of the old western shows.

I snicker every time I hear someone babbling incoherently about how afraid they are of "rise" of Islamic extremist groups and nations. Actually, I don't snicker, I hang my head in disappointment over what a bunch of cowards the West, and in particular America, has become. These guys are not a threat. Soviet-fucking-Union with a few thousand nukes, an appealing ideology to both the intellectuals and the masses, and half the worlds population? That was a threat. That was a technological empire that either directly or indirectly had control over half of the worlds population and could do some damage if we ever came to blows. These clowns though? They are technologically backward and desperately trying to grow the gap. Their ideology has nearly zero appeal to anyone who isn't already destitute. Hollywood alone eats these clowns alive and spits out their bones. Africa and fellow Middle Eastern countries should be worried about Islamic extremism, but for the West to give these clowns more than a passing thought is just pathetic and cowardly.

You don't even need to fight them. They are going to off themselves without any help from the West. We should turn our eyes to far more scary things, like balancing budgets and reviving economies.

I'm sad for the opposite. In ancient times these were the scholars of the world, taking in, and preserving ideas. Today you say Islam, and all people hear are desperate terrorist. (tysm Osama) We owe so much of our modern world to their innovation, and now look at them. I wish they would some how grow out of this stage, and become what they were before. Keepers of ideas, and culture.

No. I'm not Arab, or Islamic. I do enjoy reading history though.

Not going to happen as long as US and European political and corporate interests are better served by having some rambling lunatics run the show.

The insane thing is that Iran was a modern, westernized nation in the 60s. But then a left leaning leadership was elected, and so MI6 and CIA set out to replace it with the Shah. Only to have that spectacularly blow up in their face and a certain ayatollah grabbed power.

I can't fathom why their government thinks they can realistically isolate their people from information, and expect their society to thrive.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The Iranian government doesn't want their society to "thrive." They want to keep it docile, ignorant, and controlled.

The majority of governments, or governing elites, want this. In Iran they can be more overt in the measures they take to suppress information exchange. In the west its "won't someone think of the children!" ...

The technical difficulties are enormous. They have to disconnect the public telephone network from the rest of the world, right? Or are there zero dial-up servers left in the world? Maybe Iranians already can't initiate a copper-based call to the outside? The proposers of this CAN (country-area-network) must realize that it won't keep information out -- but it certainly does give them full access to what their population does on the network.

It's probably less expensive than developing the kind of examination the U.S.government does on its own population (and others) via the NSA.

well, it might seem preposterous for US citizens, but this is because the internet is effectively American-based already, so no need to make it US-only.

Case in point: most of the services we use are American, including 3 we probably spend most of our day in (Google, Facebook, Twitter). Most of the content circulated and downloaded by US citizens (bought or pirated) is American or at worse, European (with the possible exception of Anime). Besides those, most of the forums you frequent, social nets you join, pages and blogs you read, media you follow, are predominantly American. Even Wikipedia, albeit "international", holds mostly a neutered western secular official-history stance. Fuck, even the DNS is controlled by American organizations --and let's not start with domain seizures etc. Yes, one can venture outside the American domain, but even the language barrier (most Americans don't speak a foreign language) constrains that a lot. Well, if you're technically minded it's better (you can find technical posts in english from all around the world) but we're talking about the general population here.

So, would American's feel OK with a imaginary internet that was run mostly by, say, USSR and followed USSR doctrines? Would you let your citizens data fall on USSR organizations that openly share it with the government? One can understand why Iranians might not feel OK with the present internet. Especially if the dominant culture behind the internet also threatens it all the time, and has already invaded a few nearby places --oh and also overthrew their democratic government a few decades ago to install a dictatorship.

What I mean is: OK, this is bad from a ideal standpoint of world unity et al. But one has to judge such moves also in the conditions of the time, and try walking in the shoes (so to speak) of the people that might be threatened (not just abstractly but in a very real sense). One should also try to understand the historical perspective of such decisions.

Also one cannot always attribute such decisions to the iranian government only (as if citizens don't want it). There is, after all such a thing as a society that wants such things, one has only to look as far as the Bible Belt for an example. If the US was just the Bible belt, how long before the Internet would have been voted to be American only and censored?

Yeah, those damn Americans, controlling the entire internet from their position in second place. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with any of your points. Most Americans use American services? And? Those same American sites are localized to use different languages and follow different rules in different countries. How would American's feel about a Russian-run internet? Since almost everything is localized, they probably wouldn't notice. Perhaps you're not aware, but in Russia, Facebook is in Cyrillic. There's very little that makes in "American" there, and there's no language barrier, because you're usually friends with people that speak your language. Heck, I bounce off Russian servers all the time, and those DO fall under Russian laws.

What "dominant culture" of the internet are you referring to? Are there American people running around everywhere saying that since hand-egg is called football in America, all other countries must cease using that phrase, and that "soccer" is the new name? Are American spies planting American slang onto Irish newspapers? Where is this "dominant" culture you speak of, because for the life of me, I can't seem to find it. Are American value propagating through DNS or something? What?!

Cutting off your country from the rest of the internet is something that Americans wouldn't stand for. All the talk of "oh the Bible Belt". Bullcrap, you know how many of those guys play online poker on Russian servers? They'd cry bloody murder. The point is that most people don't care where a website is stored, or what country the people running it came from. They just want it to be useful for them, and as long as you're connected to the people you know (which is what all the big internet companies are trying to do) then the "dominant culture" for any user is the one they choose. You think the April 6th Youth Movement felt that their culture was being dominated by the west because they organized on Facebook? No, to them, THEIR culture was dominant on the site. That's the point of the internet- even though it's technically an American-run website, it was used by people for their own ends. There is no "dominant" culture on the internet. There is only dominant culture of the parts of the internet you choose to go.

All the snide comments against Americans always makes me laugh. "Those stupid Americans, always stereotyping other cultures". Wait...what? It's like you don't realize that the stereotypes applied to Americanas are about as reliable as those applied to any other country-- mostly meaningless. Considering in the 30 years, white people are going to be the minority here, you guys are going to have to discover some new material. Unless you intend to take the negative stereotypes about Americans and also apply them to the Latino and African-American communities.

Oh how did I miss this one, sry Alex it's not at you.

Ok here is a stretch, if your country foots the bill to create some new social technology, then you can call the shots mkay? The Internet was a military project when it was first turned on.

Don't like Twitter, or Facebook. How about some industrious european start up a flashy new .eu domain, and take the whole internet by storm. Nothing is stopping you, well besides money, and talent. Don't underestimate talent, those are the guys who keep the lights on when nature does her thing. I have personally seen some awesome web technology developed by some asian community. I have no idea where they are from, only that it was in chinese characters. The asian web have some of the best looking sites on the internet. Go surf their web, and consider the possibilities.

You wanna QQmoar cause nobody is doing anything fun in europe? How about maybe they are trying to get past some of your real problems, unlike our government who just gets more in debt? I wish you folks luck, it'll be nice to see what the EU can do once you all get settled.

I have to ask: what factual news report lies behind this article's headline, specifically the "Iran plans to unplug the Internet" part? I see reports talking about increased filtering, about their own email system and search engine, their national 'clean intranet.'

But where's the news which says they plan to fully unplug the internet for any segment of their population?

(Hint: starting up a new network doesn't always mean the old one must be unplugged.)

But who is going to want an internet without pr0n? Seriously, supply and demand will completely cripple the idea.

At least producing it to the standards of Sharia law will be easy. Every single one will go like this: 1) Man and woman walk into bedroom, bur-qua on the girl. 2) Man reaches towards bur-qua. 3) Lights go out, sound mutes.4) Ten minutes later, return to starting marks with man slightly sweaty. Woman praises Allah for such a wonderful husband.

I live in the UK, who are planning to record every single website, when you visited it. Every single phone call, how long, how to, what time. Every single e-mail, instant message, text message, forum post, social media post and have the ability to view this in real time to government approved interested parties.

The UK also employs the "clean feed" web filter at the ISP level, supposedly to stop child pornography, but no doubt used to censor other stuff. But I don't buy that bullshit. Recently two lads are serving four years for a facebook status update, where no-one got hurt. Yet rapists and peado's consistently serve less time than that.

Don't bullshit about how bad Iran is. When you have shite articles like this spewing zionist propaganda into peoples homes.

I deliberately use my real name on all my forum posts. Why? Because it's my last line of defense. Freedom of speech. I use my real name so no barrister can claim I was "hiding" behind anything. I'm prepared to state my case using my real name.

As soon, it won't matter what username you have in the UK, the spooks will be able to see just who you are anyway. And it gives their lawyers less ammunition against me. It won't stop the knock on the door in the middle of the night. And that does keep me up.

But who is going to want an internet without pr0n? Seriously, supply and demand will completely cripple the idea.

At least producing it to the standards of Sharia law will be easy. Every single one will go like this: 1) Man and woman walk into bedroom, bur-qua on the girl. 2) Man reaches towards bur-qua. 3) Lights go out, sound mutes.4) Ten minutes later, return to starting marks with man slightly sweaty. Woman praises Allah for such a wonderful husband.

I don't like Islam. Never have. Never will. But you're talking shite. You do know that the woman doesn't have to wear the Burka in front of her own husband. Only in the view of other men if she ventures outside. In fact, she could wear victoria secret underwear in the house.

At least understand the thing you're attempting to take the piss out of.

I have to ask: what factual news report lies behind this article's headline, specifically the "Iran plans to unplug the Internet" part? I see reports talking about increased filtering, about their own email system and search engine, their national 'clean intranet.'

But where's the news which says they plan to fully unplug the internet for any segment of their population?

Because the Jews want you to hate Iran, to legitimize their desire to wipe all the arabs off the face of the map.

But who is going to want an internet without pr0n? Seriously, supply and demand will completely cripple the idea.

At least producing it to the standards of Sharia law will be easy. Every single one will go like this: 1) Man and woman walk into bedroom, bur-qua on the girl. 2) Man reaches towards bur-qua. 3) Lights go out, sound mutes.4) Ten minutes later, return to starting marks with man slightly sweaty. Woman praises Allah for such a wonderful husband.

I don't like Islam. Never have. Never will. But you're talking shite. You do know that the woman doesn't have to wear the Burka in front of her own husband. Only in the view of other men if she ventures outside. In fact, she could wear victoria secret underwear in the house.

At least understand the thing you're attempting to take the piss out of.

Hrm, but, I do understand it. Hence my joke on the removal of the bur-qua. The viewer of such pr0n would clearly not be allowed such a sight. Perhaps I should have said the camera pans away for you to get the joke?

Also, I am aware that Iran is probably the most "Western" of the Islamic states behind closed doors.

I live in the UK, who are planning to record every single website, when you visited it. Every single phone call, how long, how to, what time. Every single e-mail, instant message, text message, forum post, social media post and have the ability to view this in real time to government approved interested parties.

I live in the UK, who are planning...[and]also employs the "clean feed" web filter...{note that] two lads are serving four years for a facebook status update, where no-one got hurt. Yet rapists and peado's consistently serve less time than that.

Don't bullshit about how bad Iran is. When you have shite articles like this spewing zionist propaganda into peoples homes.

I deliberately use my real name on all my forum posts. Why? Because it's my last line of defense. Freedom of speech. I use my real name so no barrister can claim I was "hiding" behind anything. I'm prepared to state my case using my real name.

As soon, it won't matter what username you have in the UK, the spooks will be able to see just who you are anyway. And it gives their lawyers less ammunition against me. It won't stop the knock on the door in the middle of the night. And that does keep me up.

Balls out, Bill. Best of luck. I understand your frustration (I think). Government elements in the U.S. are definitely taking advantage of the masses of "public" data available. I honestly don't know how much is trawling versus how much is court-sanctioned based on probable cause. My e-mail messages intended for specific recipients shouldn't be examinable by the U.S. government without probable cause but I suspect quite a bit of what I think is private is examined in some way by the NSA (at least).

However, above I put emphasis on your labeling this article as "zionist propaganda" because I'm not sure why you'd want to single out "zionists" as responsible. Do you believe this story incites me, as a U.S. citizen, to support invasion? or sanctions? ALL religions are so full of shit that I'd be compleely unsurprised to see any one of the major religious ideologies wish to BOTH control and monitor whatever network of whatever size they can AND hypocritically accuse another entity of attempting to censor and control it's own population.

So what's the specific beef with zionists? Is your only evidence that this article is zionist propaganda the fact that it's about Iran?

I would assume they do this for religious purposes. Its not like they don´t have engineers and people that actually study, they are far from ignorant. I suppose they don't want people looking at porn or making jokes about Ala, they are just to sensitive it seems.

On the other side, every single news media and country just attacks and bashes Iran and Iranians on almost everything, so its not like they are losing to much. Most people that probably comment here or on other websites are probably even afraid to mention from where they are because of this fact. At least I can´t remember when I saw someone posting from Iran anywhere on the net. Or they hide, or they just don´t mention it.

Please, they don't give a shit about religion, it's a just a corrupt regime dressed up as a theocracy. They are increasingly at odds with their huge and well educated youth population, the regime nearly fell 2 years ago, they are just desperately trying to shut off influence from the outside world (like democracy, real news), it seems their aim is to become like north korea.

I live in the UK, who are planning to record every single website, when you visited it. Every single phone call, how long, how to, what time. Every single e-mail, instant message, text message, forum post, social media post and have the ability to view this in real time to government approved interested parties.

Absolute BULLSHIT.You seem will adapt at propaganda.

Learn to write English and I may accept your point. Actually no I won't, because what I wrote is true.

Also learn to understand what's happening around you instead of buying the bullshit you read on Fox news, you know, the news agency run by what I see as an Australian criminal.

Im sure thier "clean" websites will consist of wife beating tips, and how to "honor kill" your family for wanting to be a free American. Sprinkled with suggestions on how to worship Allah or face execution. Lovely

"Enemies of the internet" You've got to be kidding me. Talk about paranoid language and a sensationilist report that's heavy on the propaganda. If a country wishes to set up its own internet, so what? It's not for us to suddenly say they have become 'enemies of the internet' just because they want to do things their way.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The Iranian government doesn't want their society to "thrive." They want to keep it docile, ignorant, and controlled.

First of all an apology for what I am about to say, but some of the ignorance here is astounding. Remember 'Arab Spring'. Numerous middle eastern countries recently had regimes toppled. Social networks played a very large part in this. Iran is acting rationally here. It is moving to cut off its citizens from the web and provide an alternate resource to protect its country from just such a sequence of events leading to just such an outcome. Don't for one moment think that if social networks threatened governments here in the West that drastic measures wouldn't also be taken, because they would be. The UK government, for example, considered blocking all access to Twitter when the link between it and the riots last year was discovered.

We are the ones who put him there, so we should remove him and every "diplomat" (spy) helping him.

The British especially want you to think they withdrew from Victorian colonies. In truth all they did was stage mock revolutions and strengthened their grip on power. They believe if your eyes, skin, and language aren't European, then your country needs to be "liberated"... meaning subverted or destroyed.

Thank Lamar Smith...This is exactly what happens when the US starts a legislative trend of messing with DNS, monitoring traffic, etc. over moral imperatives. Historically, we set trends for the rest of the world. When we allow the MPA to monitor traffic, use IP's to track our own citizens, when we set a precedent for "moral censorship" it gives other countries the OK to begin censoring over their own moral sensibilities.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The Iranian government doesn't want their society to "thrive." They want to keep it docile, ignorant, and controlled.

First of all an apology for what I am about to say, but some of the ignorance here is astounding. Remember 'Arab Spring'. Numerous middle eastern countries recently had regimes toppled. Social networks played a very large part in this. Iran is acting rationally here. It is moving to cut off its citizens from the web and provide an alternate resource to protect its country from just such a sequence of events leading to just such an outcome. Don't for one moment think that if social networks threatened governments here in the West that drastic measures wouldn't also be taken, because they would be. The UK government, for example, considered blocking all access to Twitter when the link between it and the riots last year was discovered.

...and there you go, because the US has limited it's own Internet over things congress doesn't like and under pressure from the MPAA, it has given credence to political regimes in the middle east to take it a step further. Regulation is regulation, no matter degree. Until the US can say that it values the Internet over special interests and IP scams...we can't expect any more from other countries.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? The Iranian government doesn't want their society to "thrive." They want to keep it docile, ignorant, and controlled.

First of all an apology for what I am about to say, but some of the ignorance here is astounding. Remember 'Arab Spring'. Numerous middle eastern countries recently had regimes toppled. Social networks played a very large part in this. Iran is acting rationally here.

Wait, you think it's rational for a theocracy to shut down public speech because the people may tell them they don't want to be in a theocracy anymore?

Thank Lamar Smith...This is exactly what happens when the US starts a legislative trend of messing with DNS, monitoring traffic, etc. over moral imperatives. Historically, we set trends for the rest of the world. When we allow the MPA to monitor traffic, use IP's to track our own citizens, when we set a precedent for "moral censorship" it gives other countries the OK to begin censoring over their own moral sensibilities.

Correlation does not imply causation. Not to mention this type of thing was done well before the US by other countries both developing and western.

Secondly, i'd point out that much of the Iranian population is not in favor of the current government that they have, and the government is fearful of that.

This sort of development gives me a different kind of outlook on the Iranian nuclear program. Yes, I agree that we have no choice but to economically punish nations that pursue weapons and offer rewards to those that give it up. But this has a bizarre counter-effect.

Iran has self-imposed isolation, but its nuclear program automatically buys it externally imposed isolation. That's really not a good thing, and we don't know what there is to do about it. It's not just that their nuclear program keeps them from trading with the United States, but their nuclear program is an excuse to not trade with the United States. We sanctioned them, but did they really sanction themselves?

One way or the other, Iran's own people are a greater threat to the regime than an invasion by Western powers. I feel like it's a little concerning that their government can use the conflict with us as a justification for action against its real enemy - it's own people.